Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How can England possibly be running out of water?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 524 posts

Re: How can England possibly be running out of water?

#451

Post by oceanplexian »

jmyeet wrote: post #298
sandbags wrote: post #34

As the article mentions, privatised water companies have built no new reservoir capacity and relied on drawing from rivers and other sources. What the article doesn’t mention is that pre-privatisation a new reservoir was built every year up to about 1960 and then every few years until privatisation in 1992. So we are about 30 years behind in adding capacity to the system. This combined with the inadequate levels of i…

So... because capitalism. People have this propagandized view that the "free market" (which isn't real) is responsible for innovation. All capitalism does is build enclosures and engage in rent-seeking. With the tendency for profits to decrease, ultimately it comes down to cutting costs and raising prices. So why would a water company invest in a new reservoir? That increases supply. That might lower prices. The UK i…

>People have this propagandized view that the "free market" (which isn't real) is responsible for innovation.

In the last century and a half, we went from candle light and horse and buggy, to the lowest level of global poverty in the last 5,000 years of recorded human history.

If capitalism wasn't responsible then what was?

Re: How can England possibly be running out of water?

#452

Post by lambdaone »

qcnguy wrote: post #363
gjm11 wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Within whose party base? If you're saying that the Tories are viewed as too left-wing by Reform voters, then I assume that's true because Reform are further right than the Tories, but so what? If you're saying that Conservative voters find it "controversial" (whatever exactly you mean by that) that Reform is recruiting former Conservative politicians -- well, I'm sure they don't like it, no one likes it when some oth…

> Pretty much no one other than extreme rightists would describe the Conservatives as a centre-left party If an election were called tomorrow your next government would be Reform with a massive majority of 339 seats. It is the most popular party in the country by far. It would collect 33% of the vote vs Labour's 18% and the Conservatives would get only 17%, translating to their near-total destruction (only 35 seats).…

> If an election were called tomorrow your next government would be Reform with a massive majority of 339 seats. It is the most popular party in the country by far. It would collect 33% of the vote vs Labour's 18% and the Conservatives would get only 17%, translating to their near-total destruction (only 35 seats).

If. But since the Labour government has a massive Labour majority that doesn't have to hold another election until 2029, that's not going to happen any time soon. Four years is a long time in politics.

For non-European readers, Reform are the equivalent of Germany's AfD or France's RN - or America's MAGA. It's a populist culture war party.

In response, far from doubling down, Labour has swung dramatically to the political right (by UK standards) of their normal political position in terms of the culture war issues like immigration and transgender rights that have been driving support for Reform.

We're having bad times in the UK, and no-one likes the incumbent government during bad times. (Never mind that the bad times are largely due to factors beyond their control, as is generally the case until a party has been in power for long enough to start turning the ship.)

Reform, meanwhile, are currently playing on easy mode; voters can say anything they like at the moment, and Reform are picking up the fantasy-football protest vote based on making wild promises they are unlikely to be able to fulfil.

None of this is to say Reform are not a serious threat. But the concept that their victory is inevitable is part their schtick, and should be resisted.

Re: How can England possibly be running out of water?

#453

Post by swiftcoder »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #410
swiftcoder wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My provider is Thames Water. They are losing money. Are they losing money because costs exceed revenue, or are they losing money because they are servicing massive loan interest on money they already distributed to shareholders?

Page 10 of their 24/25 annual report says they only pay 8% toward interest payments, the largest outgoing is infrastructure, then opex. https://www.thameswater.co.uk/media-library/l13deqmw/thames-...

I'm not a financial wiz, but it seems like they are playing games here, as a huge chunk of their stated losses for the year is some sort of loan write-off against their parent company.

> £1,271 million of expected credit loss provision recognised against the intercompany loan receivable from TWUL’s immediate parent company, Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited. This balance is fully provided for, as it is not deemed recoverable

Re: How can England possibly be running out of water?

#454

Post by coryrc »

Earw0rm wrote: post #447
mschuster91 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it's hard to see a use-case for hundreds of B-2s, for example. Sell them to allies. But ever since both Trump and Biden seriously restricted Ukraine from defending itself... let's say the US isn't among the most trusted arms suppliers these days. A lot of soft power, just gone.

I'm from the UK, one of your wealthier allies. We can't afford to buy or operate B-2's. Not sure who could.. Taiwan? Saudi? Israel?

Taiwan isn't that wealthy and all bombers all be destroyed by PRC in the first salvo, so not any point in having them.

Re: How can England possibly be running out of water?

#455

Post by mschuster91 »

Earw0rm wrote: post #447
mschuster91 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it's hard to see a use-case for hundreds of B-2s, for example. Sell them to allies. But ever since both Trump and Biden seriously restricted Ukraine from defending itself... let's say the US isn't among the most trusted arms suppliers these days. A lot of soft power, just gone.

I'm from the UK, one of your wealthier allies. We can't afford to buy or operate B-2's. Not sure who could.. Taiwan? Saudi? Israel?

I'm German actually. We used to buy lots of American weapons but ... let's say we are reevaluating priorities at the moment.

Re: How can England possibly be running out of water?

#456

Post by graeme »

alt227 wrote: post #217
Frieren wrote: post #3

> Future generations, who will be dealing with long, dry summers, would probably be shocked at the profligate way clean tap water was used to flush toilets, water gardens and run washing machines. Climate change means societal change. There was a time that Northern Africa was one of the best places in the world to grow crops. They were at the top of civilization for thousands of years. Climate changed, what people co…

> we did this to ourselves I would argue that a small minority of the human race did this to the rest. > the lack of foresight Everybody on the planet is well aware of what is happening and why. Its not lack of foresight, it is pure ignorance and apathy of those who are making money off the backs of these tragedies.

This really isn't true. Most people aren't even close to reckoning with what net zero would involve. Most people haven't even got a stock vs flow model of carbon and think that lowering co2 emissions means reducing global warming. (As opposed to reducing the speed of the increase).

You yourself haven't got a model. If we stop using fossil fuels today, billions die. The energy from fossil fuels has generated widespread benefit and allows our current wealth. And also heats the atmosphere.

The emissions of the bottom 90% globally, and the emissions in the products they use are more than enough to sustain global warming.

Fobbing the problem onto "the other", however you define them, is another way to justify doing nothing.

Re: How can England possibly be running out of water?

#457

Post by triceratops »

qcnguy wrote: post #344
4ggr0 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's like saying the CDU in germany is left because CDU voters started voting AfD. people flocking to an even more conservative party does not mean that the original party is somehow left.

Good example. The CDU is in a coalition with the left wing parties and refuses to work with the AfD in any way, not even winning votes with their votes, on the basis that the AfD is right wing and thus inherently evil. So the CDU is indeed not a recognizably right wing party anymore, and has suffered mass defections for that very reason. If it were, it would enter into coalitions with other right wing parties rather…

> on the basis that the AfD is right wing and thus inherently evil

I thought it was on the basis of the whole Nazi thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany#Neo-Na... Everyone except Nazis agrees that Nazis are inherently evil.

Re: How can England possibly be running out of water?

#458

Post by coryrc »

Aushin wrote: post #429
jdietrich wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Postal Service has been running at a loss since 2007. It lost $9.5bn last year, despite a colossal bailout in 2022 that was supposed to return it to profitability. Most of these losses can be attributed to pension and healthcare costs. The USPS is pretty much the worst example of a sustainable nationalised business that you could possibly choose.

Only because of legislative sabotage in 2006 by right wing ideologues determined to prove that public services "can't work" https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/6407

The problem that's at-least-purporting-to-address is one facing all the levels of government: boomers promised themselves future taxpayers would give them lots of services (money) while setting aside wholly insufficient capacity to make it fair to the future working citizens.

Re: How can England possibly be running out of water?

#459

Post by lansol »

fredrikholm wrote: post #347
kccqzy wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good thing to re-evaluate. The government shouldn't dictate people's preferences. People's lifestyles have changed. It's now normal for this generation of people to prefer a dark cave-like room where they play video games and socialize online. Glare from windows restrict where monitors could be placed. If they want natural light, they would prefer to go outside for a walk or a hike. And that's not to mention…

Sweden is very green and comparatively car free. Having open windows during summer to let in light, fresh air and bird sound is culturally strong here. You can buy curtains, you can't retroactively insert a window as easily nor should you have to my lord. I can't imagine living in a dark, centrally ventilated container. Most Swedes agree (massive pushback when this happened, gov backtracked).

No, you are right. It is absurd. The same government also increased the income tax deduction on renovations both in percentage and amount.

So is the suggestion of less light and more isolation in Sweden. One of the darkest and most lonely countries in the world. There is already no requirement for windows in bathrooms and kitchens, as you can't regularly open windows in winter anyway.

Re: How can England possibly be running out of water?

#460

Post by sgt101 »

catigula wrote: post #448

There's a magician's trick done when people talk about a problem directly attributable to massive population growth and instead of looking at cause, they look at effect.

I wondered if anyone would point this out. England's population has risen 25% in my lifetime. Worse, the (perfectly adequate for this level of population) water infrastructure in in the wrong place... It's all in the North East in order to supply steel mills that are no longer there!
Post reply on HN